Not Bowling Alone: Revisiting Partisan Types and Participatory Behaviors Using the Communication Mediated Model

IF 4.9 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Communication Research Pub Date : 2023-08-30 DOI:10.1177/00936502231195658
Hsuan-Ting Chen, Jing Guo
{"title":"Not Bowling Alone: Revisiting Partisan Types and Participatory Behaviors Using the Communication Mediated Model","authors":"Hsuan-Ting Chen, Jing Guo","doi":"10.1177/00936502231195658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on the two-wave 2020 American National Election Studies (ANES) survey, this study revisits partisan types by categorizing individuals’ party identification and positions on party-divided issues. A Latent Class Analysis reveals six types of partisans, which were further clustered into three types: polarized partisans (i.e., polarized Democrats and polarized Republicans, 47.85%), incongruent partisans (i.e., conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, 28.23%), and floating citizens (i.e., hesitant citizens and apathetic citizens, 23.92%) based on the partisan typology proposed in this study. Employing the O-S-R-O-R model, this study found that polarized partisans (O), who are the most politically active citizens, are more likely than incongruent partisans and floating citizens to seek pro-attitudinal news on multi-platforms (S), then to discuss politics (R), then to be politically knowledgeable (O), which finally leads to higher levels of political participation. The results highlight a worrisome tendency in US politics as participation is largely by biased polarized partisans. Nevertheless, incongruent partisans also have the potential to make contributions to both deliberative and participatory democracy because they are also politically active. Their discussion and participatory behaviors can be attributed to their mixed issue positions and counter-attitudinal news consumption on multi-platforms.","PeriodicalId":48323,"journal":{"name":"Communication Research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Research","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231195658","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Drawing on the two-wave 2020 American National Election Studies (ANES) survey, this study revisits partisan types by categorizing individuals’ party identification and positions on party-divided issues. A Latent Class Analysis reveals six types of partisans, which were further clustered into three types: polarized partisans (i.e., polarized Democrats and polarized Republicans, 47.85%), incongruent partisans (i.e., conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, 28.23%), and floating citizens (i.e., hesitant citizens and apathetic citizens, 23.92%) based on the partisan typology proposed in this study. Employing the O-S-R-O-R model, this study found that polarized partisans (O), who are the most politically active citizens, are more likely than incongruent partisans and floating citizens to seek pro-attitudinal news on multi-platforms (S), then to discuss politics (R), then to be politically knowledgeable (O), which finally leads to higher levels of political participation. The results highlight a worrisome tendency in US politics as participation is largely by biased polarized partisans. Nevertheless, incongruent partisans also have the potential to make contributions to both deliberative and participatory democracy because they are also politically active. Their discussion and participatory behaviors can be attributed to their mixed issue positions and counter-attitudinal news consumption on multi-platforms.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不只打保龄球:用沟通中介模型重新审视党派类型和参与行为
根据2020年美国国家选举研究(ANES)的两波调查,本研究通过对个人的党派认同和对党派分歧问题的立场进行分类,重新审视了党派类型。潜在阶级分析揭示了六种类型的党派人士,并将其进一步分为三种类型:两极分化的党派人士(即两极分化的民主党人和两极分化的共和党人,47.85%)、不协调的党派人士,以及基于本研究中提出的党派类型的流动公民(即犹豫不决的公民和冷漠的公民,23.92%)。采用O-S-R-O-R模型,本研究发现,两极分化的党派人士(O)是政治上最活跃的公民,他们比不协调的党派人士和流动公民更有可能在多平台上寻求支持态度的新闻(S),然后讨论政治(R),然后了解政治(O),这最终导致了更高水平的政治参与。这一结果突显了美国政治中一种令人担忧的趋势,因为参与的主要是有偏见的两极分化的党派人士。然而,不协调的党派人士也有潜力为协商民主和参与民主做出贡献,因为他们在政治上也很活跃。他们的讨论和参与行为可以归因于他们在多平台上的混合议题立场和反态度新闻消费。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Communication Research
Communication Research COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
17.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Empirical research in communication began in the 20th century, and there are more researchers pursuing answers to communication questions today than at any other time. The editorial goal of Communication Research is to offer a special opportunity for reflection and change in the new millennium. To qualify for publication, research should, first, be explicitly tied to some form of communication; second, be theoretically driven with results that inform theory; third, use the most rigorous empirical methods; and fourth, be directly linked to the most important problems and issues facing humankind. Critieria do not privilege any particular context; indeed, we believe that the key problems facing humankind occur in close relationships, groups, organiations, and cultures.
期刊最新文献
Personality, Attachment, and Pornography: A Meta-Analysis Expansion and Exploration of the Superdiffuser Model With Agent-Based Modeling “I’ll Change My Beliefs When I See It”: Video Fact Checks Outperform Text Fact Checks in Correcting Misperceptions Among Those Holding False or Uncertain Pre-Existing Beliefs “None of Us Wanted to be at This Party, But What a Guest List”: How Technology Workers Position Themselves on LinkedIn Following Layoffs Caught Within the Family System: An Examination of Emerging Adults’ Dilemmas in Navigating Sibling Depression
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1